Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a
woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that
definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical
reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other
requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation
of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine
California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to
impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any
change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality
that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.When
same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state
reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According
non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions
of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be
telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil
rights laws into a battering ram against them.

Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two
sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not
alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral
and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social
anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations,
any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive
energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better
for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality
outside of man-woman marriage has survived. Analyzing studies of cultures
spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist
Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought
about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage
and family were devalued by the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are
the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual
couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be
the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the
one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping
point for continuing the assault on marriage.If feelings are the key
requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or
consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to
stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a
living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names,
heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the
sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

The doctrine that Gays and Lesbians preach is always in the name of "Diversity."
Why then are they so eager to practice a lifestyle that is HOMO-sexual. Their
message is totally contradictory.

Children need a mother and a father
who can add their unique perspectives and experiences as male and female. The
Jazz would not have been more successful if John Stockten had been passing the
ball off to another John Stockten! They needed Carl Malone!

Thank you again for deleting my comments.They were neither abusive,
offensive, a misrepresentation or any of the above. Truth hurts sometimes. The
Church is way too thin skinned on this subject.Freedom of speech is not
alive and well in the Church. Is it!

I have known many people who have become so much more "themselves" when in
groups or gatherings of same-sex individuals. Some men in groups of others who
are all men and some women in groups where all are women have behaved in such
different ways than when they were in groups of mixed gender. I believe this is
behavior located somewhere along the gradient of same-sex attraction. Numerous
individuals only flourish or blossom when in same sex environments. Is it right
or wrong? No, it is human behavior.

Now, why don't we judge all
humans by their behavior? If a person's behavior is social, productive, moral
and uplifting, let's support and sustain that behavior. If it is otherwise,
let's not promote it but attempt to re-direct it. Nowhere in the gospel of
Jesus Christ do we preach, practice or attempt to do otherwise. There have been
some instances in history where God has invited His children "back home" because
they have abandoned all opportunities to succeed but Fathers get to do that.
Evidence throughout the history of the restored Church shows that in
righteousness we have always condemned behavior but always accepted the person.
Nothing has changed in this, either.

I don't understand how so many people think that the church doesn't hava a right
to free speech. The all caring and ultra tolerant left wing crowd, sure wants to
shut down the church's right to express it't beliefs. I know that we all know
that these people are only tolerant until you disagree with them. They often
claim to have a better understanding of Christianity then the rest of us. They
preach about how the Savior said this and the Savior said that, and then they
judge whether others are really following his example. The way I see it they
just want to tell God how it is going to be. They can express thier Ideas just
like everyone else, then go on with thier lives and make their own choices,
according to the law.

Why did this article reference Affirmation over and over and over. We are not
reading the article to hear what they have to criticize or like. We want to
know what the churches statement is and what it means. We don't care about how
some fringe group with a few members reacts to it. You are giving this fringe
group way too much coverage and press time. I don't really care about how they
react to the speech. We don't want to read about their reactions to everything.
Enough of the overblown press coverage of Affirmation.

Marriage in this country is a civil legal contract between two people, nothing
more. To deny it to one group is un-American. The church can set any rules
they like but they have NO business forcing their warped ideas on the rest of
the country. I believe they were told that about 150 years ago. Why don't I
see any protests about the government making the Mormon's change their rules
then?

I was born and raised in the LDS Church and, to be frank, I am very disheartened
to see the Church spend so much time, money, and energy on this issue. There are
so many issues out there that are more pressing than how the State of California
decides to divvy out rights. Imagine what we could accomplish if we steered
this same energy into efforts to alleviate poverty in this country. No matter
what California chooses to do, the reality is that the Church can still teach
and practice its principles. I'm sad that the Church has decided to impose its
principles through political will. I was baptized a member of a church, not a
political PAC.

"so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the
constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice
their religion free from government interference,"Churches certainly can
and should be able to express their views, and their aderents can, within the
law, behave accordingly. However, it's not a blank cheque. Polygamy sneaks in on
this one. And, as many of us in Utah know, it would be nice if government could
practise free of religious interference.

I would like to know when did marriage become a legal issue. I may be wrong but
I thought marriage was originally governed by religions. I have not given it
much thought but what is the legal justification for the government controlling
marriage?